AQ aiding Syrian rebels?

[Oberon]

History is generally written by the victors though, to be fair.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Oberon

History is generally written by the victors though, to be fair.

In case of Vietnam I think there can be no doubt about what the final standing was. I do not need neither Chinese nor Vietnamese PR officials to tell me that.

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

In case of Vietnam I think there can be no doubt about what the final standing was. I do not need neither Chinese nor Vietnamese PR officials to tell me that.

Who cares what the final standing was? That's not the issue. The issue was whether the Viet Cong were the ones who won the war. They were not. That was the North Vietnamese Army backed by the Red Chinese. The VC were finished as a fighting and political force after Tet as was I expect the NVA's plan from the start.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by August

The issue was whether the Viet Cong were the ones who won the war. They were not. That was the North Vietnamese Army backed by the Red Chinese. The VC were finished as a fighting and political force after Tet as was I expect the NVA's plan from the start.

No, the original issue raised was that North Vietnam one and the United States lost. You chose to nitpick the names of the winners to suit your own agenda, and then tried to change the nature of the "issue".

[Hottentot]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

You chose to nitpick the names of the winners to suit your own agenda, and then tried to change the nature of the "issue".

Um, he did not as far as I can tell. This started from a specific comparison between AQ and the Viet Cong. I'm no expert on Vietnam war, but in this case it seems to me that August has a valid point. It makes sense to make a difference between a traditional army and a mostly guerilla force.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Hottentot

Um, he did not as far as I can tell. This started from a specific comparison between AQ and the Viet Cong. I'm no expert on Vietnam war, but in this case it seems to me that August has a valid point. It makes sense to make a difference between a traditional army and a mostly guerilla force.

Skybird's original point:

In Vietnam the Vietcong also lost every ground battle and offensive it tried - and still won the war.

was correct, and he reiterated it later. His point was that the Vietnamese won and the Americans lost. While he was technically in error as to the proper names of the victors his point is still correct. August used that error to "prove" Skybird "wrong", but also changed the point of Sky's original argument to suit his own ends, and changed the subject of that argument. He then claimed that his point was the original one, which is not true. This is a classic example of the 'Red Herring' debate tactic.
http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html

That's a really good fallacy synopsis. Should be required reading for posting around here.

[Hottentot]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Skybird's original point: [snip]

was correct, and he reiterated it later. His point was that the Vietnamese won and the Americans lost.

I've read that a few times now, but still just see it the other way. As I see it, the question specifically is if the Viet Cong won the war or not. That is, would the NVA have won without the VC anyway. It would be different if August had started by claiming the North Vietnamese didn't win in the first place, but he says no such thing.

To first say "The Viet Cong [as in political guerilla force like the AQ] won the war" is quite different from saying: "The North Vietnamese [as in including also NVA, a traditional army armed with the traditional army stuff and fighting like a traditional army] won the war".

But maybe I'll stop here trying to interprete them too much and let them continue. I feel like the Devil reading the Bible here.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Skybird

In case of Vietnam I think there can be no doubt about what the final standing was. I do not need neither Chinese nor Vietnamese PR officials to tell me that.

Oh indeed, but there is still many in the US who believe that if operations such as Linebacker had continued, instead of being stopped every time the DRV wanted to talk (aka wanted a break to rebuild and rearm) then the war might have had a different outcome. Or if the US had actually gone into North Vietnam in force, perhaps through an amphibious assault to bypass the heavily fortified border.
What ifs and maybes, just as there are after every war, but certainly the goals that the US set out to achieve were not met as the ROV ceased to exist.

[Hottentot]

Originally Posted by Oberon

History is generally written by the victors though, to be fair.

I don't know. Last I checked, history was written by historians, and as far as jobs go, those guys are definitely on the losing side.